coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Brzeg.
5.  On 2 July 1997 the applicant applied for a building permit in order to join two flats she rented by way of building an internal stairway.
6.  On 15 July 1997 the Brzeg District Office issued the building permit as requested. The chairman of the Brzeg Municipal Property Management Board (Miejski Zarząd Mienia Komunalnego) lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.
7.  On 29 August 1997 the Governor of Opole upheld the District Office’s decision. The chairman of the Brzeg Municipal Property Management Board lodged an appeal against that decision. The applicant built a stairway between the two apartments in compliance with the building permit.
8.  On 24 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions and referred the case back for reconsideration, stating inter alia that the applicant had no right to make use of the flat for construction purposes.
9.  On 16 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of the mayor of Brzeg with the Supreme Administrative Court.
10.  On 18 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court admitted that the proceedings in question had been lengthy and ordered the mayor to deal with the case within two months of the judgment being served on the parties.
11.  On 5 July 2001 the mayor of Brzeg discontinued the relevant proceedings as being without purpose (bezprzedmiotowe), given the fact that the stairway had already been built. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.
12.  On 24 September 2001 the Opole Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the contested decision and referred the case back for reconsideration.
13.  On 29 January 2002 the Brzeg District Governor’s Office discontinued the relevant proceedings on the same basis as the mayor of Brzeg. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.
14.  On 24 April 2002 the Governor of Opole upheld the impugned decision. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 21 December 2004 the Opole Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
16.  On 20 January 2005 the applicant applied for a legal-aid lawyer to be appointed in order to lodge a cassation appeal on her behalf against the Regional Administrative Court’s decision.
17.  On 7 March 2005 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
18.  On 14 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court decision.
19.  Eventually, the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal.
20.  On an unspecified date the Brzeg Municipality instituted civil proceedings for payment against the applicant, also seeking to have the flat vacated.
21.  On 8 September 1999 the Brzeg District Court allowed most of the plaintiff’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.
22.  On 6 March 2000 the Opole Regional Court varied the lower court’s judgment so as to reduce considerably the amount of the payment awarded to the plaintiff.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan, a city in the Kurgan Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to social beneﬁts. The beneﬁts were underpaid, and the applicant sued the local welfare authority.
6.  The Kurgan Town Court held for the applicant eight times.
7.  On 25 March 2003 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 8 May 2003 and was enforced in July 2003.
8.  On 3 April 2003 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 17 April 2003 and was enforced on 21 July 2005.
9.  On 19 February 2004 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 6 March 2004 and was enforced on 21 July 2005.
10.  On 11 March 2004 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 27 March 2004 and was enforced in July 2005.
11.  On 27 April 2004 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 8 May 2004 and was enforced in July 2005.
12.  On 20 December 2004 the court awarded inationary loss caused by the non-enforcement of the previous four judgments, awarded arrears, and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 11 January 2005 and was enforced on 27 October 2006.
13.  On 22 May 2006 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 6 June 2006 and has been enforced in part.
14.  On 28 June 2006 the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts. This judgment became binding on 14 July 2006 and has been enforced in part.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Pskov, a town in the Pskov Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought six successful actions against local authorities responsible for welfare.
6.  On 13 August 2002 the Pskov Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 24 September 2002. According to the Government, this judgment was fully enforced by 31 December 2006. According to the applicant, this judgment has still not been enforced, because from 1 January 2007 the periodic benefits were reduced again.
7.  On 11 June 2003 the Town Court awarded 15,000 Russian roubles (“RUB”) as interest for delayed payment. This judgment became binding on 15 July 2003. On the welfare authority’s request, on 20 February 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of misapplication of material law.
8.  On 21 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court District 31 of Pskov awarded RUB 3,000 as interest for delayed payment. This judgment became binding on 9 October 2003. On the welfare authority’s request, on 14 May 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of misapplication of material law.
9.  On 28 October 2003 the Town Court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 10 November 2003. According to the Government, this judgment was fully enforced by 31 December 2005. According to the applicant, this judgment has still not been enforced, because the periodic payments continue to be miscalculated.
10.  On 29 December 2003 the Town Court awarded compensation of inflationary loss caused by the delayed enforcement of an earlier judgment. This judgment became binding on 9 January 2004 and was enforced on 8 July 2005.
11.  On 1 June 2005 the Town Court ordered the applicant to be provided in 2005 with a decent flat of at least 65 m². This judgment became final on 15 June 2005 and was enforced on 29 December 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 8 May 2002 the Novogrodivka Town Court ordered the Novogrodivka Mining Company No. 1/3 – a State-owned enterprise – to pay the applicant arrears of compensation for loss of breadwinner, i.e. her husband, in the amount of 1,285.58[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH).
6.  This judgment became final and on 6 August 2002 the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 12 August 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 14 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine. According to her, in April 2005 the proceedings were still pending. The applicant did not provide the Court with any further information in this regard.
8.  On 19 October 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of 8 May 2002 had been enforced in full. The applicant did not contest this decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Saint Petersburg.
5.  As a serviceman and victim of radiation, he is entitled to a State flat. On 28 March 2002 the 224th Military Court of the Saint Petersburg Garrison ordered the Naval Engineering Academy to provide the applicant with a flat “meeting statutory requirements”. This judgment became binding on 9 April 2002, but was not enforced immediately.
6.  In 2002–04 bailiffs several times urged the defendant to comply with the judgment.
7.  In 2002–04 the applicant rejected three settlement offers.
In November 2002 he refused a three-room flat in Kommunar, a settlement in the Leningrad Region located 2 km away from Saint Petersburg. In February 2003 he refused a three-room flat in Gatchina, a town in the Leningrad Region located 8 km away from Saint Petersburg. The applicant rejected these two offers on the ground that they were located outside Saint Petersburg.
In February 2004 the applicant refused a flat in Pushkin, a town located within the administrative city limits of Saint Petersburg. The applicant rejected this offer on the ground that the flat was smaller than that due.
8.  In December 2004 the debtor offered the applicant a four-room flat in Saint Petersburg, and the applicant accepted it. On 12 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant moved into the flat and began to pay utility bills. On 9 August 2007 the applicant’s tenancy was formally recorded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Samobor.
5.  On 8 October 1990 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, the company F., challenging his dismissal and seeking his reinstatement and payment of salary arrears for the period of his unemployment.
6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) granted the claim in part in a judgment of 6 December 1991, which was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 13 April 1993.
7.  In a decision of 2 September 1998 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case for retrial, upon an appeal lodged by the defendant.
8.  In the fresh proceedings the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and dismissed his claim for payment of salary arrears on 11 May 2000. The applicant lodged an appeal.
9.  On 29 April 2003 the Zagreb County Court upheld the part of the first instance judgment dismissing the claim for payment and quashed it in the part granting the applicant’s claim for reinstatement and in that part remitted the case for a fresh trial.
10.  The applicant did not attend a hearing scheduled for 21 October 2003 before the Zagreb Municipal Court and the proceedings were stayed. On 24 October 2003 the applicant asked that the proceedings be resumed and further hearings were held on 12 February and 6 April 2004. On 2 June 2004 the trial was concluded but the applicant then submitted further evidence and the trial was reopened on 17 June 2004. Further hearings were held on 3 May 2005 and 7 November 2007 when the applicant asked for the exemption of the presiding judge. Hearings were held on 6 February and 10 April 2008 and the proceedings are still pending.
11.  Meanwhile, on 24 January 2003 the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 27 November 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible because the Zagreb County Court had in the meantime, on 29 April 2003, decided on his appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Taganrog, the Rostov Region.
6.  On 12 March 2003 the applicant purchased a recreation centre (“the centre”), comprising a group of cottages, from a private company. The centre was situated on a plot of land belonging to a collective farm.
7.  The applicant asked the Registration Office to register the transfer of the title to the centre from the company to her. However, the applicant’s request was dismissed, because the company had not duly registered its title to the centre, and therefore was unable to transfer it to the applicant.
8.  The applicant brought proceedings against the company seeking to obtain acknowledgement of her title to the centre.
9.  On 7 April 2003 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim.
10.  No ordinary appeal was lodged against the judgment.
11.  On 18 April 2003 the judgment became final and enforceable.
12.  On 23 June 2003 the Registration Office registered the applicant’s title to the centre.
13.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the collective farm lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 7 April 2003. It alleged that the said judgment was unfounded since, even though the collective farm owned the plot on which the centre in question was situated, it had not been invited to take part in the proceedings and its interests had not been taken into consideration by the domestic court.
14.  On 3 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court remitted the supervisory-review application for examination on its merits by the Presidium.
15.  On 25 December 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court adopted the judgment with significant violations of substantive and procedural law. In particular, the Presidium pointed out that the first-instance court did not investigate the circumstances of the case, that it failed to identify all the parties to the proceedings, to invite the owner of the land to participate in the proceedings and that it had pronounced judgment by which the rights of the latter were considerably affected. On these grounds the Presidium quashed the judgment of 7 April 2003 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination.
16.  On 25 January 2005 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region dismissed the applicant’s claim, declared the purchase agreement void, annulled the registration of the applicant’s title to the centre and restored the parties to their original position.
17.  On 30 March 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Lipovljani.
5.  On 15 April 1993 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against his employer, the company I., seeking damages for an injury sustained in the workplace.
6.  On 21 June 1994 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 19 September 1999.
7.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 20 December 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant’s complaint, finding a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarding him compensation in the amount of 5,100 Croatian kunas (HRK). It also ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the applicant’s case in the shortest time possible but no later than ten months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The decision was published on 12 January 2005.
8.  On 1 February 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was quashed on appeal by the Zagreb County Court on 16 October 2007 and the case was remitted to the Municipal Court, where the proceedings are currently pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kemerovo.
5.  As a retired serviceman, the applicant was entitled to a State flat. The flat was not provided, and the applicant brought an action against the Kemerovo Town Council.
6.  In the course of the proceedings, on 6 May 2003, the Town Council offered the applicant to settle the case by providing him with a “State housing voucher” – a registered instrument entitling its owner to a housing subsidy. The applicant rejected this and several subsequent similar offers.
7.  On 12 May 2003 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Kemerovo ordered the Town Council to
“provide the applicant’s family of four with a dwelling by way of, among other means, State housing vouchers valid for acquisition and construction of dwellings and financed by the Federal budget, and also by way of off-budget financial sources.”
8.  This judgment became binding on 23 May 2003.
9.  In 2004–06 the Town Council several times offered the applicant the voucher. The applicant refused these offers and asked the District Court to change the mode of enforcement to a cash payment, but on 7 November 2005 the District Court refused this request.
10.  On 20 August 2007 a bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had refused the voucher.
6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warsaw.
7.  On 10 November 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for payment with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant requested the court to make an order for payment against his business partner. The value of the claim was 500 Polish zlotys (PLN) (about 150 euros (EUR).
8.  On 9 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
9.  On 7 February 2004 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.
10.  On 30 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court heard the applicant’s appeal and granted the claim for payment.
11.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and that just satisfaction should be awarded to him.
12.  On 9 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (36 months and 7 days of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court) but refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that the applicant had failed to reason his request for just satisfaction and that the proceedings for payment of PLN 500 did “not seem to be particularly important for the applicant, who is a businessman”.
13.  On 29 January 2005 the applicant lodged another application concerning the length of the civil proceedings for payment. Those proceedings lasted 5 years at one level of jurisdiction. The applicant made use of the complaint provided for by the 2004 Act and the domestic court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (35 months and 21 days of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court) but refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought proceedings against the local welfare authority.
6.  On 20 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court held for the applicant, awarded arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic benefits with subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 2 March 2004 and, according to the Government, was gradually enforced by January 2006.
7.  Later, the applicant sued the welfare authority for its failure to enforce the judgment in time, but on 16 December 2004 the Kaluga Regional Court rejected this claim.
8.  The applicant also believed that the judgment remained unenforced with regard to the adjustment for the cost of living. For this reason, he sued the welfare authority, but on 7 April 2005 the Town Court rejected this claim as unfounded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Novovoronezh, a town in the Voronezh Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to benefits. Considering herself underpaid, she brought six sets of proceedings against the local welfare authority.
6.  On 18 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court awarded the applicant arrears and legal costs in the amount of 3,014.09 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 28 October 2000 and was partly enforced on 24 September 2003.
7.  On 16 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant more arrears in the amount of RUB 19,315.50. This judgment became binding on 19 August 2003 and was enforced on 17 December 2004.
8.  On 16 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 16,765.50, and on 1 April 2004 the appeal court in addition fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 1 April 2004 and was enforced on 3 August 2005.
9.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 4,973.57. This judgment became binding on 25 March 2004 and was enforced on an unspecified date.
10.  On 26 August 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 21,118.50. This judgment became binding on 6 September 2004 and was enforced on 24 August 2005.
11.  On 26 August 2004 the Town Court also awarded the applicant further arrears in the amount of RUB 1,772.30 and fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 6 September 2004 and was enforced on an unspecified date.
12.  On the applicant’s request, on 31 May and 16 November 2005 the Town Court compensated the applicant’s inflationary loss caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the total amount of RUB 9,369.86.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Petropavlosvk-Kamchatskiy, a town in the Kamchatka Region.
5.  The applicant lives in a municipally maintained flat. She sued the local council’s planning department and a municipal maintenance company for overdue repairs. On 29 April 2002 the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy Town Court awarded the applicant 60,729 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of damages and costs, and in addition ordered the defendants to
“eliminate the cause of the leak in [the applicant’s flat] in the third quarter of 2002 by way of reconstructive repairs of the end wall and roof according to the estimate for selective repairs of the house.”
This judgment became binding on 6 June 2002, but was not enforced immediately.
6.  On 19 August 2002 bailiffs closed enforcement proceedings against the planning department, because in the meantime it had been disbanded. On 19 February 2003 the bailiffs closed enforcement proceedings against the maintenance company because of its insolvency. The writ of enforcement was passed to the Central Bank.
7.  From December 2002 to September 2006 the applicant received three payments totalling RUB 19,155.49. In the second quarter of 2005 the applicant’s roof was repaired.
8.  In separate proceedings in 2004 the applicant brought unsuccessful civil claims against the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsk Town Council. These proceedings ended with the judgment of the Kamchatka Regional Court of 17 June 2004.